Affordability is becoming a central test for companies pursuing mergers and acquisitions, and state capitals are increasingly where that test is applied. As cost-of-living concerns shape the environment ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, state attorneys general are using affordability as a clearer, more public-facing lens to scrutinize deals that could affect everyday costs.
For companies and boards, that means deal strategy can no longer focus on satisfying federal regulators. Any transaction touching consumer costs should be assessed early for state-level political, legal, and reputational risk.
Affordability Is Becoming An Enforcement Frame
State attorneys general are asking a simple question: Will this make life more expensive for consumers?
Groceries, gas, utilities, housing, insurance, healthcare, childcare, and entertainment have all become part of the affordability debate. Transactions involving these everyday costs are more likely to attract scrutiny from elected officials who are directly accountable to voters and often campaigning on the cost of living.
In June, California Attorney General Rob Bonta made that shift explicit by establishing a standing Affordability Response Team focused on practices that drive costs across those categories. For companies considering transactions in these sectors, that turns a political talking point into an enforcement priority.
State AGs Are Turning Cost Concerns Into Legal Action
California is not alone. The National Association of Attorneys General made “Driving Down Costs for American Families” its 2026 presidential initiative. It highlights issues including healthcare consolidation, housing costs, energy prices, price gouging, and alleged price-fixing. Candidates for the office are running on the same themes.
Recent enforcement decisions reflect this trend. Kroger-Albertsons centered on groceries, RealPage on housing, and Live Nation on ticket prices.
Focusing on affordability can pay off. An attorney general picking a case is likely picking one that voters will follow, and a deal about grocery prices is easier to explain than a complicated legal argument. Former Washington attorney general Bob Ferguson sued to block the Kroger-Albertsons merger in January 2024 while running for governor. A judge halted the deal that December, a month after he was elected governor.
Attorneys general can act alone, but increasingly, states are working together to bring higher-profile challenges. Multistate action draws more media coverage and does more to shape public conversation about a deal. In Paramount’s purchase of Warner Bros. Discovery, a coalition of states led by California challenged the deal a month after it cleared federal review, delaying the transaction. In another recent example, a group of attorneys general worked together to secure a federal injunction against the Nexstar-Tegna merger over concerns about higher cable bills and local jobs.
Financial services companies face similar risks. In July 2026, Illinois’ attorney general Kwame Raoul led a group of attorneys general in asking the OCC, the Federal Reserve, and the FDIC to reject two deals in which high-cost lenders were buying banks. The effort targeted OppFi’s $130 million purchase of BNC National Bank and Enova’s $369 million purchase of Grasshopper Bank. The attorneys general argued the deals would let the lenders get around state caps on interest rates. Enova has since withdrawn its application while Senate Democrats increase their calls for OppFi to do the same.
State AGs Are Turning Cost Concerns Into Legal Action
Companies can get ahead of these risks ahead of time. Before a deal is signed, boards and deal teams should be able to answer three questions:
-
Where do we have enough customers for a state to say its residents are affected?
-
What is the attorney general running on, and what office do they want next?
-
Which affordability category does this deal fit in, and what do we say if someone puts it there?
Answering these questions is not just a risk-mapping exercise. It gives companies, deal teams, and boards a clearer view of where political scrutiny is most likely to come from, how an attorney general could frame their deal, and what the company needs to be ready to say and do before that narrative takes hold. That preparation can help companies pressure-test their rationale, engage earlier, and avoid being caught flat-footed if affordability becomes the public lens for their transaction.
The pressure will not ease after November. Companies that work through these questions early have a better chance of shaping how a deal gets described, from the Beltway to state capitals across the country.
